Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Nikon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Nikon Cameras 
Thread started 05 Feb 2010 (Friday) 20:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (II)

 
this thread is locked
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Feb 16, 2012 00:07 |  #4726

SuperHuman21 wrote in post #13906206 (external link)
Are you KIDDING ME? Dude...not cool. :mad: I guess there's always next January! :p You were only about 15 mins away from me. Well, anyway, I'll probably rent it for church summer camp but I have a feeling it won't be in stock so I'll go with the D3s then if not. Last year's pics sucked with my D90 at camp. I couldn't lower my shutter speed any more than I did and even at ISO 1600, it was terrible because of the lighting.

Speaking of which, would it be the best idea to rent the D3s (or D800E if available) with a flash and raise ISO to 6400 so that I can conserve battery and for more discreet shooting?

Maybe next time. :) That weekend was sort of a bummer since it rained most of the day.

I personally have never shot a D3s but, if you want ISO performance, the D3s is the way to go. :)

nicksan wrote in post #13906303 (external link)
85G is money. Really liked it while I owned it. IMO, just as good as the 85L and in sone areas, better. You'll be happy with it I am sure.

Thanks for the feedback. :) Btw, how's the baby? Do we have a name? :D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,501 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Feb 16, 2012 10:39 |  #4727

For those who haven't read this yet, I think it's worth a read.
http://www.amateurphot​ographer.co.uk …_news_311455.ht​ml?aff=rss (external link)

Talks of new cameras, differences between the 800 and 800E and the D700 sticking around.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,727 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Feb 16, 2012 10:54 |  #4728

jdizzle wrote in post #13906442 (external link)
Thanks for the feedback. :) Btw, how's the baby? Do we have a name? :D

2 more weeks. Name will be revealed in due time. :D


NYC Wedding Photographer (external link) | Blog (external link) | facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
imjason
Goldmember
1,667 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Feb 16, 2012 13:47 |  #4729

85 1.8G samples up for those interested in a more wallet friendly FX prime.

http://www.flickr.com …16785501/with/6​881182795/ (external link)


Canon gear: EOS M, Canonet QL17, SX230HS, S95, SD1200IS
Non-Canon gear: D600, D5000, D70, XG-2, U20
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony_Stark
Shellhead
Avatar
4,287 posts
Likes: 337
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Feb 16, 2012 14:19 |  #4730

imjason wrote in post #13909476 (external link)
85 1.8G samples up for those interested in a more wallet friendly FX prime.

http://www.flickr.com …16785501/with/6​881182795/ (external link)

Its looking really good. I wonder how it will compare with Canon's 1.8.


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
20,960 posts
Gallery: 332 photos
Likes: 1397
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 16, 2012 15:44 |  #4731

Tony_Stark wrote in post #13909685 (external link)
Its looking really good. I wonder how it will compare with Canon's 1.8.

Love the bokeh on it...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Feb 16, 2012 21:26 |  #4732

nicksan wrote in post #13908558 (external link)
2 more weeks. Name will be revealed in due time. :D

Awesome! Keep us updated! :cool:

imjason wrote in post #13909476 (external link)
85 1.8G samples up for those interested in a more wallet friendly FX prime.

http://www.flickr.com …16785501/with/6​881182795/ (external link)

That looks darn good. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,501 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Feb 17, 2012 09:50 |  #4733

Here's a what would you do type of question.

You need to re-buy a new system. The bodies are a D800E, D70 and 1 lens which is the 105/2.8D Micro Nikkor and 1 flash which is a SB-700.

Lenses need to be used for portraits, street photog/candids, low light sports/concert shooting and low light indoor in confined spaces.

Restrictions:
- Budget is $5000USD max, spending less would be a bonus.
- No variable aperture lenses.
- Nothing slower than f/4 BUT f/2.8 or faster is preferred.

I'm trying to get some ideas, thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
Avatar
46,189 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 41
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Cloud and Honey
     
Feb 17, 2012 10:09 |  #4734

I say 24-70mm, 85mm f/1.8 and 70-200mm VRII

or 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 70-200mm VRII :D


www.monk3y.com (external link) | My GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,501 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Feb 17, 2012 10:27 |  #4735

I could probably get away with the 24-70 and 70-200 and call it a day. The only reason why I don't is I prefer primes theses days. I know I will get one of the 85's but im not sure which or what others to get to complement it yet.

Edit: I just bought the 85/1.4g. I didn't want to go with the Sigma because I'm unsure of performance with the D800E and the 1.8 is a bit of an unknown right now.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,501 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Feb 17, 2012 15:34 |  #4736

Scratch the D70 I got from Adorama. Rated an E+ but the camera has a mirror lockup problem. I have better luck buying off of the forums.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
20,960 posts
Gallery: 332 photos
Likes: 1397
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 17, 2012 17:35 |  #4737

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13914372 (external link)
Here's a what would you do type of question.

You need to re-buy a new system. The bodies are a D800E, D70 and 1 lens which is the 105/2.8D Micro Nikkor and 1 flash which is a SB-700.

Lenses need to be used for portraits, street photog/candids, low light sports/concert shooting and low light indoor in confined spaces.

Restrictions:
- Budget is $5000USD max, spending less would be a bonus.
- No variable aperture lenses.
- Nothing slower than f/4 BUT f/2.8 or faster is preferred.

I'm trying to get some ideas, thanks!

24-120 f/4 VR
85mm f/1.8G
35mm f/1.4G
70-200 f/2.8G VR II

I think i covered it within budget...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,501 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Feb 17, 2012 18:26 |  #4738

KenjiS wrote in post #13916777 (external link)
24-120 f/4 VR
85mm f/1.8G
35mm f/1.4G
70-200 f/2.8G VR II

I think i covered it within budget...

Thanks. That 24-120 would never see the light of day if I had those other three. :lol:

I added the 85/1.4 earlier. I don't know if I should add the 14-24/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 16-35/4 or 24/1.4 on the wide side. This is where Canon made it easier for me with the 16-35/2.8 II.

14-24 - heavy and less useful zoom range.
17-35 - Older, not as sharp as the other lenses
16-35 - It's an f/4
24/1.4 - 1.4 makes up for not being a zoom but it's the most expensive of the bunch.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
20,960 posts
Gallery: 332 photos
Likes: 1397
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 17, 2012 18:32 |  #4739

The 17-35 f/2.8 really isnt a bad lens though...last i checked it was considered better than the Canon 16-35 series...

the "extreme corners" arguement BS is really a measurebation thing if you think about it... Do you really put anything you want to focus on in the absolute corners of your images? So long as the center circle is very sharp, the absolute edges of your frame can be soft (and in fact, probubly SHOULD be soft) because you're not sticking anything important over there...

Unless you're shooting a brick wall or something...

The 17-35 is sharper at f/4 than the 16-35 is... And its a bit smaller

My vote would be for a 17-35 f/2.8...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,501 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Illinois
     
Feb 17, 2012 18:53 |  #4740

KenjiS wrote in post #13917013 (external link)
The 17-35 f/2.8 really isnt a bad lens though...last i checked it was considered better than the Canon 16-35 series...

the "extreme corners" arguement BS is really a measurebation thing if you think about it... Do you really put anything you want to focus on in the absolute corners of your images? So long as the center circle is very sharp, the absolute edges of your frame can be soft (and in fact, probubly SHOULD be soft) because you're not sticking anything important over there...

Unless you're shooting a brick wall or something...

The 17-35 is sharper at f/4 than the 16-35 is... And its a bit smaller

My vote would be for a 17-35 f/2.8...

If I shot landscapes I might care about corner sharpness but I don't. The 17-35 and 24 are the two lenses in that group I haven't used. Have you heard anything about how fast the 17-35 focuses?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

709,567 views & 0 likes for this thread
Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (II)
FORUMS Nikon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Nikon Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cliodiver
708 guests, 408 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.